ML20023B930
| ML20023B930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023B929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305090331 | |
| Download: ML20023B930 (2) | |
Text
9 V.
.,c a
- 's.
@ Qtco i
l Ui41TED STATES x
t ~
D
(
- '
- [;
.p(/.:. j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
>s,
- {
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
9..eO.
n
]
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION P
P. ELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY s
SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-280 Introduction By letter dated April 14, 1983, Virgir.ia Electric and Power Company (the licensee)' requested an amendment to Surry Power Station, Unit No.1.
This amendment would're/ise the Technical Specifications to change the control rad insertion limits.
v Discussio'n and Evaluation As a result of inspections performed of the fuel assemblies in Unit 1 during the current refueling outages, the licensee has had to develop a different loading pattern than was anticipated for the upcoming Cycle 7.
The results of these inspections ~ are discussed in the licensee's letter dated March 23, 1983.
The revised core 1cading configuration reouired another reload Safety Evaluation. The reload Safety Evaluation provided is based on analysis
" performed by '!estinghouse in accordance with the methodology documented i'n 'c!estinghouse Topical Renort MCAP 097?.
The r'esults indicated that no key analysis parameters would become more limiting during Cycle 7 operation than the values assumed in the currently applicable safety analysis. The basis of this evaluation include the assumotion o# a revision to the presently approved control rod insertion limits.
'he revised insertion limi..ts are reiuired'to meet' the' current radial power peakinc factor desiqr l
g limits for Cycle 7 coeration.
"e have reviewed the proposed Technical Specification on control rod h-insertion limits and conclude that they are acceptable since the insertion l
limits have been obtained using methods previously approved by MRC.
4 i
t k
m305090331 830426 i
PDR ADDCK 05000280 1
P PDR--
,_-.,,m.,.
t 2-L
[
Environmental Consideration P
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in I
effluent types er total amounts nor an increase in pcwer level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment k
involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to.10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendient.
Conclusion I
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Oate: April 26,1933 c incipal Contributor:
r Margaret Chatterton f
k I
k 6
y
,---.+..--.e..
m.
w asa y-.
.